FONSI and Final EA for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use ...

FONSI and Final EA for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County ProjectCentral Utah Water Conservancy District
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
BLOCK NOTICE 7A2 TEMPORARY USE IN NORTH UTAH COUNTY
August 2021
Block Notice 7A2 Temporary Use in North Utah County
In accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the
Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of
NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 15001508), and the U.S. Department of the Interior
regulations for implementation of NEPA (43 CFR Part 46), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Central
Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office) and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
(CUWCD), find that the Proposed Action analyzed in the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for
the Block Notice 7A2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Project (Project) would not significantly
affect the quality of the natural or human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement
is not required for the proposed Project.
Alternatives
NoAction Alternative Under the NoAction Alternative, the 18,900 acrefeet (AF) of Block Notice 7A2 would remain in
Strawberry Reservoir and not be used for municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County, for a
potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study, or for the temporary use for instream flows in the lower
Provo River to support the June sucker. The 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A2 water would not be used
until Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and
Sandy (MWDSLS) requested its use or until the end of the 10year deferral period. The 10year deferral
period began in October 2020.
Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative would allow the CUPCA Office, CUWCD and the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission) as JointLead Agencies (JLAs) to use,
on a temporary basis as described in Chapter 1 of the Final EA, up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A2
water for:
Municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County and to allow that water to be delivered
through CUWCD’s CWP system and or the Alpine Aqueduct/North Branch Pipeline. The Provo
River Aqueduct and the Jordan Aqueduct were evaluated as delivery systems in the ULS EIS.
Potential managed aquifer rechange pilot study at five locations within north Utah County.
Instream flows in the lower Provo River to support the June sucker.
Varying amounts up to, but not more than 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A2 water could be used for the Proposed Action on a yeartoyear basis as described above and contingent upon approved water sales agreements, interlocal agreements for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study, and operations and management agreements for instream flows. All of the 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A2 water may not be used every year. The precise amount of water to be used for any of the three options is not
FONSI 1 Block Notice 7A2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Finding of No Significant Impact
August 2021

known at this time and the allocations will be allotted based on requests and availability. Each of the elements of the Proposed Action Alternative are described below.
Municipal and Industrial Temporary Use in North Utah County
The Proposed Action Alternative could potentially use up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A2 water
for M&I purposes in northern Utah County in the following cities/areas:
Alpine Fairfield Provo
Cedar Fort Lindon Vineyard
Eagle Mountain Orem
The Block Notice 7A2 water was evaluated in the ULS EIS for use in Salt Lake County but the EIS did not
evaluate its use in northern Utah County. The Block Notice 7A2 water could be delivered through
existing federal and nonfederal delivery systems and could be provided under short term
contracts/agreements.
The following pipelines/aqueducts could be used to deliver the Block Notice 7A2 water:
Provo River Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS)
Jordan Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS)
Alpine Aqueduct
o North Branch Pipeline
CWP pipelines and aqueducts
Part of the Project is to provide the JLAs the flexibility needed to utilize both federal (i.e., Jordan
Aqueduct, Alpine Aqueduct) and nonfederal (i.e., CWP, North Branch Pipeline, Provo River Aqueduct)
delivery systems for conveying Block Notice 7A2 water.
Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study
The Block Notice 7A2 water could be used on a temporary basis as described for a potential managed
aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah County. A specific managed aquifer recharge pilot study
project has not been identified at this time. Managed aquifer recharge is a component of the larger
aquifer storage and recovery process which utilizes surface water to increase groundwater supply
reliability. Managed aquifer recharge consists of spreading surface water to recharge a known aquifer
and storing it in the aquifer for later use. The recovery or extraction and use of this stored water is not
proposed as part of this project nor was it evaluated in the Final EA.
The Proposed Action Alternative consists of the potential use of five managed aquifer recharge locations
to utilize up to 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A2 water for a pilot test which consists of surface spreading.
The five recharge locations are existing facilities and would require no new infrastructure for a managed
aquifer recharge project. The five potential recharge locations are (see Figure 12 in the Final EA):
August 2021
Highland Gravel Pit
Dry Creek Channel
As part of the pilot testing, existing wells in the vicinity of the recharge locations could be monitored to
determine the effectiveness of the managed aquifer recharge.
Instream Flows for Temporary Use in the Lower Provo River
The Proposed Action Alternative could potentially use up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A2 water
for instream flow in the Provo River in support of recovery of the threatened June sucker on a
temporary basis as described. The June sucker is a lake sucker fish endemic to Utah Lake. It was federally
listed as an endangered species with critical habitat on the lower 4.9 miles of the Provo River under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) on April 30, 1986 (51 FR 10857). Recently, on February 3, 2021, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service moved the June sucker to threatened status.
On a temporary basis as described above, the Block Notice 7A2 water could be delivered to the lower
Provo River from the SFPRCP at the Olmsted Power Plant tail race located at the mouth of Provo
Canyon. The water could help support Provo River flows in the manner identified in the Lower Provo
River Ecosystem Flow Recommendation Report (2008) which was adopted and evaluated in the Provo
River Delta Restoration Project EIS and RODs (2015).
The Provo River Delta Restoration Project (Delta Project) is currently being constructed under the
direction of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. The Delta Project is a major
undertaking to improve the rearing habitat for the young June sucker by recreating a delta in the lower
Provo River. The Delta Project will further the recovery efforts of the June sucker and construction is
scheduled to be completed in 2025. The temporary use of the Block Notice 7A2 water could assist with
the establishment of the vegetation and habitat in the Provo River Delta once construction is completed.
Need for the Proposed Action The need for Block Notice 7A2 Temporary Use in North Utah County is to allow up to 18,900 AF of Block
Notice 7A2 water allocated for the JVWCD and MWDSLS service areas to be used temporarily in north
Utah County.
Another Project need is to provide the JLAs the flexibility to utilize existing water systems that extend
into north Utah County for the delivery of the temporary Block Notice 7A2 water. These systems are
the Provo River Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS), Jordan Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS), Alpine
Aqueduct and North Branch Pipeline, and the CWP system. In addition, by providing the temporary
Block Notice 7A2 water for the uses described and as determined by CUWCD, the water may provide
interim revenue during the deferral period to offset CUWCD costs associated with the water.
August 2021

Purpose for the Proposed Action The purposes for the Proposed Action are listed below:
Purposes:
Provide water for temporary municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County
Provide water for a potential temporary managed aquifer recharge pilot study in
north Utah County
Provide water for temporary instream flows in the lower Provo River in support of
the recovery of the threatened June sucker
Findings The Proposed Action does not violate federal, state, or local laws or requirements imposed for
protection of the environment. The JLAs have analyzed the environmental effects, public and agency
comments, and the alternatives in detail and find that the Proposed Action meets the purpose and need
described in the Final EA with no significant impacts to the natural or human environment. The
Proposed Action and the NoAction alternatives would have no effect on the natural or human
environment. The Proposed Action would not require any construction or ground disturbing activities.
Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to identify and address disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects of its program,
policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. Since there would be no
change in existing or similar land or water uses, there would be no adverse human health or
environmental effects to minority or lowincome populations.
Decision The CUPCA Office and CUWCD have decided to implement the Proposed Action Alternative as described
in the Final EA. The Mitigation Commission will issue a separate Decision Document.
Environmental Commitments No environmental commitments are needed for the Project.
Public Comment and Review The Joint Lead Agencies released the Draft EA on Friday, June 11, 2021, for public and agency review.
The public and agency review period ended Friday, July 16, 2021. Activities used to notify the public and
agencies of the release of the Draft EA consisted of:
Legal notices in statewide newspapers
Interested Party Letters were sent to those that commented during the scoping period and to
local, state and federal agencies
Updating the project website with a copy of the Draft EA along with a means to provide
comments
Native American consultation letters were sent
August 2021

Comments Received on the Draft EA A total of three comments were received on the Draft EA and are found in Chapter 4 in the Final EA.
Comments were received from one individual, the Ute Indian Tribe, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. A response to the comments is found in Table 42 in Chapter 4 of the Final EA.
Department of the Interior Response to the Ute Indian Tribe Comment
On June 29, 2021, the Ute Tribe sent a letter to the Department of the Interior requesting Nation to
Nation consultation on the Block Notice 7A2 Temporary Use in North Utah County (Project),
Environmental Assessment. In response, the Department of the Interior representatives met with the
Ute Tribe Business Committee on Wednesday July 14, 2021, in Ft. Duchesne to consult on the proposed
Project.
At the meeting, the Department of the Interior described the proposed Project and explained they had
found no evidence of impacts to tribal interests. Department of the Interior asked if the Ute Tribe had
identified tribal resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The Business Committee
expressed their views regarding the Central Utah Project water development and asked questions
regarding previous analysis of impacts to the Duchesne River and the temporary nature of the proposed
Project. The Business Committee also raised general concerns and disagreements over water storage
and general management of water resources by the Department of the Interior. Many of these concerns
are the subject of ongoing litigation between the United States and the Ute Tribe and did not specifically
implicate the discrete proposal addressed in Block Notice 7A2.
Based upon this consultation, the Joint Lead Agencies conclude that the proposed Project would have no
effect on Tribal interests which have not been analyzed in previous environmental studies. The FONSI
and Final EA are posted on the internet at https:// https://cuwcd.com/blocknotice7A2.htm and
www.cupcao.gov. Copies of the Final EA and FONSI are available on request by contacting:
Sarah Sutherland
Email: [email protected]
August 2021
Utah County Project Final Environmental Assessment
August 2021
Joint Lead Agencies U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office Central Utah Water Conservancy District Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
Cooperating Agency U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Responsible Officials Reed R. Murray U.S. Department of the Interior, CUPCA Office 302 East Lakeview Pkwy Provo, Utah 84606-7317 Gene Shawcroft Central Utah Water Conservancy District 1426 East 750 North, Suite 400 Orem, Utah 84097-5474
Mark Holden Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 230 South 500 East, Suite 230
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102-2045
For information, contact: Chris Elison Central Utah Water Conservancy District 1426 East 750 North, Suite 400 Orem, Utah 84097-5474 (801) 226-7166 [email protected]
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ............................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Joint Lead Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Central Utah Project/Central Utah Project Completion Act ......................................................... 2 1.2.3 Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System ....................................................................... 3 1.2.4 Central Water Project ................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Municipal and Industrial Temporary Use in North Utah County ................................................. 8 1.3.2 Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study ...................................................................... 12 1.3.3 Instream Flows for Temporary Use in the Lower Provo River ................................................... 18
1.4 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 19 1.4.1 Purposes of the Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 19 1.4.2 Needs of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................. 19
1.5 Permits, Contracts, and Authorizations .............................................................................. 19
1.6 Related Projects and Documents ....................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 21
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 21
2.2 No-Action Alternative ......................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Proposed Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 21 2.3.1 Municipal and Industrial Temporary Use in North Utah County ............................................... 21 2.3.2 Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study ...................................................................... 22 2.3.3 Instream Flows for Temporary Use in the Lower Provo River ................................................... 22
Page ii Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents and List of Figures and Tables August 2021
Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ......................................... 25
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 Resources Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ..................................................... 25 3.1.4 Resources Evaluated Further ..................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................................. 26 3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 26 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 30 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 36 3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 37 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 37
3.5 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 38 3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 38 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 39
3.6 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 40 3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 40 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 40
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 41 3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 41 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 42
3.8 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 43 3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 43 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 44
3.9 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................. 45 3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 45 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................... 46
3.10 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................ 47 3.10.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 47 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 47
Page iii Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents and List of Figures and Tables August 2021
3.11 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................................................. 47 3.11.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 48 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 48
3.12 Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 48 3.12.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 48 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 48
Chapter 4: Project Coordination ................................................................................................ 51
4.1 Public and Agency Scoping Process .................................................................................... 51 4.1.1 Scoping Comments ..................................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Draft Environmental Assessment ....................................................................................... 52 4.2.1 Comments Received on the Draft EA ...................................................................................... 52
Chapter 5: List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 89
Page iv Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents and List of Figures and Tables August 2021
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1-1: Bonneville Unit of the CUP and CWP .............................................................................. 5
Figure 1-2: Delivery Systems and Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Basins .............................. 10
Figure 1-3: Map Showing Features at the Mouth of Provo Canyon ................................................. 11
Figure 1-4: CUWCD Overflow Basin ................................................................................................ 13
Figure 1-5: Battle Creek Debris Basin ............................................................................................. 14
Figure 1-6: American Fork River Debris Basin and River Channel ................................................... 15
Figure 1-7: Highland Gravel Pit ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 1-8: Dry Creek Channel ........................................................................................................ 17
Table 1-1: Summary of Block Notice 7A-1 and 7A-2 Allocations ....................................................... 7
Table 1-2: Summary of Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Areas ............................................... 18
Table 4-1: Comments Received During Scoping and Responses...................................................... 54
Table 4-2: Comments Received on the Draft EA and JLA Responses ............................................... 71
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AF acre-feet APA agricultural protection areas APE Area of Potential Effects BMP Best Management Practice CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CUP Central Utah Project CUPCA Central Utah Project Completion Act CUPCA Office Central Utah Project Completion Act Office CUWCD Central Utah Water Conservancy District CWA Clean Water Act CWP Central Water Project DEQ Utah Division of Water Quality District Central Utah Water Conservancy District DPR Definite Plan Report EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Interior U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office ITAs Indian Trust Assets JLAs Joint Lead Agencies JSRIP June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program M&I Municipal and Industrial MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MG million gallon Mitigation Commission Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
Page vi Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Abbreviations and Acronyms August 2021
NRHP National Register of Historic Places NUCAC North Utah County Aquifer Council NUCWCD North Utah County Water Conservancy District PL Public Law Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFSP Spanish Fork – Santaquin Pipeline SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SPC species of concern SR state road SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan UAC Utah Administrative Code UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality UDCC Utah Data Conservation Center UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality UDOT Utah Department of Transportation UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UNHP Utah Natural Heritage Program ULS Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank
Page 1 Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 1: Purpose and Need August 2021
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Introduction The Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), the United States Department of the Interior – Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office), and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission), as Joint Lead Agencies (JLAs), are proposing the temporary use in North Utah County of water allocated under Block Notice 7A-2 and have prepared this Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) to analyze and disclose the effects of the proposed project.
1.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act This Final EA presents and evaluates the potential effects of the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County (Project) in order to determine whether it could cause significant impacts to the human or natural environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, Public Law [PL] 91-190 and 42 USC 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Regulations Implementing NEPA (43 CFR Part 46). The JLAs will use the EA process to satisfy disclosure requirements and as a means for public participation mandated by NEPA and the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA, PL 102-575). The requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and other state and local regulatory obligations will be satisfied or are not applicable. If the analysis shows no significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project, then Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSIs) will be issued by the JLAs. However, the JLAs have determined that there are no significant impacts, and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not needed.
1.1.2 Cooperating Agencies As defined in 40 CFR 1501.8, a Cooperating Agency actively participates in the NEPA process, provides information for preparing environmental analyses for which the Cooperating Agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise, and is part of a proposed project’s interdisciplinary team. The JLAs invited the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to participate in the preparation and review of the draft EA as a Cooperating Agency. Reclamation accepted the invitation and has assisted in the preparation of this Final EA.
1.2 Project Background
1.2.1 Joint Lead Agencies
Central Utah Water Conservancy District The CUWCD is a political subdivision of the State of Utah, organized in 1964 under the laws of the State of Utah. CUWCD is the local sponsor of the Central Utah Project (CUP). Under CUPCA
legislation, CUWCD acts as a federal agency with respect to environmental requirements (Title II, section 205(b) of PL 102-575):
(b) COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND THE TERMS OF THIS ACT. - Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Federal funds authorized under this title may not be provided to the District until the District enters into a binding agreement with the Secretary to be considered a "Federal Agency" for purposes of compliance with all Federal fish, wildlife, recreation, and environmental laws with respect to the use of such funds, and to comply with this Act.
CUWCD entered into such an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior on August 11, 1993.
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is an Executive branch agency of the federal government. The Mitigation Commission was authorized under the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992. In addition to meeting Utah's growing demand for water, a major impetus for passage of CUPCA was awareness that prior efforts to mitigate or offset loss of natural resource values lagged the construction of CUP water development features. The Mitigation Commission is therefore responsible for designing, funding, and implementing projects to offset the impacts to fish, wildlife, and related recreation resources caused by CUP and other federal reclamation projects in Utah. The Mitigation Commission was established in the mid-1990s and consists of five commissioners, appointed by the President of the United States.
Central Utah Project Completion Act Office The Central Utah Project Completion Act Office located in Provo, Utah, was created in 1993 to oversee completion of the Central Utah Project and is staffed by a small team of professionals. The CUPCA Office provides important liaison between the Department of the Interior, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other key federal and state agencies involved with completion of the CUP.
1.2.2 Central Utah Project/Central Utah Project Completion Act The Central Utah Project is the state of Utah's largest and most comprehensive federal water resource development project. It moves water from the Colorado River basin in eastern Utah to the western slopes of the Wasatch Mountain range where population growth and industrial development are rapidly growing. The CUP also develops and provides water for the Uinta Basin located on the eastern side of the Wasatch Mountains. The CUP provides water for municipal and industrial (M&I) use, irrigation, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife, conservation, and recreation. Improved flood control and water quality are also among the project benefits. It was authorized as a participating project of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 to utilize a portion of Utah’s allotment and yield of the Colorado River. The CUP was originally divided into six units to facilitate planning and construction: Vernal, Bonneville,
Jensen, Upalco (deauthorized), Uinta (deauthorized), and Ute Indian (deauthorized). The Bonneville Unit is currently under construction while Vernal and Jensen units are completed. The Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA, P.L. 102-575) was enacted on October 30, 1992, and transferred the responsibility for planning and construction activities of the Bonneville Unit of the CUP to CUWCD and placed project oversight with the CUPCA Office of the Department of the Interior. CUPCA also authorized the creation of the Mitigation Commission, which works cooperatively to implement projects to offset environmental impacts caused by the CUP.
Bonneville Unit The Bonneville Unit collects and diverts water within the Uinta Basin (part of the Colorado River Basin) to the Bonneville and Uinta basins providing water for Salt Lake, Utah, Wasatch, Juab, and Duchesne counties, and portions of Summit County, Utah. The Bonneville Unit contains a vast network of reservoirs, aqueducts, tunnels, canals, pipelines, pumping plants, and other conveyance facilities that develop water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial use, instream flows, and hydropower production (see Figure 1-1). The Bonneville Unit is comprised of six systems: Starvation Collection System, Strawberry Aqueduct & Collection System, Municipal and Industrial System, Diamond Fork System, Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS), and Wasatch County Water Efficiency/Daniel Replacement Project. Much of the Bonneville Unit is completed and the remaining features of the ULS are currently under construction.
1.2.3 Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System The ULS is the final system of the Bonneville Unit to be constructed. The purposes of the ULS are to convey and deliver the Bonneville Unit water supply from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front Area for municipal, industrial, environmental, and temporary agricultural uses. The ULS consists principally of buried pipelines that begin at the terminus of the Diamond Fork System at the mouth of Diamond Fork Canyon. The major components of the ULS are:
• Spanish Fork Canyon Pipeline (construction completed) • Spanish Fork – Provo Reservoir Canal Pipeline (construction completed) • Mapleton – Springville Lateral (construction completed) • Spanish Fork – Santaquin Pipeline (currently under construction) • Santaquin – Mona Pipeline (future construction) • Hydroelectric Powerplants located in Diamond Fork Canyon (future construction)
ULS Environmental Impact Statement The JLAs completed an EIS in the Fall of 2004 and subsequent Records of Decisions (RODs) were signed by DOI in December 2004 and the Mitigation Commission in January 2005. The ULS EIS analyzed and documented the environmental effects and authorized the design and construction of the ULS. The EIS states that ULS would provide “30,000 acre-feet (AF) of M&I water to Salt Lake County water treatment plants” which would be delivered through the “Provo
Reservoir Canal1 and the Jordan Aqueduct” (see page 1-34 of the ULS EIS). Subsequent NEPA documents to the ULS EIS – Realignment of a Portion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System EA (2010) and the ULS Orem Reach 2 Realignment EA (2015) – described, analyzed, and approved the Spanish Fork-Provo Reservoir Canal Pipeline (SFPRCP) connection to the Alpine Aqueduct Reach. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.11 and 1508.1(ff), this Final EA tiers to the ULS EIS.
Block Notice 7A-2 As discussed above, 30,000 acre-feet (AF) of Bonneville Unit water from Strawberry Reservoir was evaluated in the ULS EIS to be used in Salt Lake County. Under the previous Block Notice 7A- 1, 8,000 AF was returned to the United States for use in the Provo River for instream flows in support of the June sucker (Chasmistes liorus). The remaining 22,000 AF has been issued to CUWCD under Block Notice 7A-2 on October 1, 2020. Of that amount, 16,400 AF has been permanently allotted to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) and 5,600 AF to Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS).
The issuance of a block notice initiates repayment for the water development costs back to the United States. CUWCD accepted Block Notice 7A-2, has not sought a deferment under the Water Supply Act of 1958 and has fully prepaid the costs associated with the Block Notice 7A-2. However, under provisions of their respective ULS water sales contracts, JVWCD has formally requested from CUWCD up to a 10- year deferment (beginning in October 2020) on their acceptance and associated payment of all or a portion of their interest in Block Notice 7A-2 water. MWDSLS has requested delivery of 3,100 AF of their portion of Block Notice 7A-2 water and requested up to a 10-year deferment (beginning in October 2020) on the remainder or portion of their contracted amount of ULS water. These deferment decisions by JVWCD and MWDSLS have resulted in 18,900 AF of water allocated under Block Notice 7A-2 being available for temporary use for up to 10 years (beginning in October 2020).
1.2.4 Central Water Project In 2005, CUWCD initiated a non-federal water development project called the Central Water Project (CWP). The CWP was designed and constructed to help meet the M&I water needs of the growing communities of northern Utah County, including Vineyard, Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain and in the JVWCD service area. Water for the CWP is supported with CUWCD’s purchase of the Geneva Steel water rights and is combined with other non-federal CUWCD surface water rights on the Provo River. To make CWP deliveries, eight wells2 at the Vineyard Well Field have been developed and over 23 miles of transmission pipelines have been constructed. In addition, turnouts, a pump station, chlorination facilities, and a 10-million-gallon (MG) reservoir have been constructed and additional facilities will be constructed as additional CWP water supply is contracted for. Ultimately, a total water supply of approximately 53,300 AF of CWP water is planned to be delivered annually to its customers. The CWP delivery system is shown in Figure 1-1.
1 The Provo Reservoir Canal has been renamed to the Provo River Aqueduct. 2 Currently, a total of 15 high-head wells are planned to be drilled to support the CWP water supply.
FIGURE 1-1: BONNEVILLE UNIT OF THE CUP AND CWP
This page intentionally left blank
1.3 Proposed Action The JLAs propose to temporarily use up to 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water in north Utah County for a period of up to 10 years (beginning in October 2020) or until JVWCD and/or the MWDSLS request all or a portion of their allotment. This water could be delivered from Strawberry Reservoir through the Spanish Fork Provo Reservoir Canal Pipeline (SFPRCP) as documented and evaluated in the ULS EIS. From the end of the SFPRCP, the 7A-2 water could be conveyed through distribution systems involving CUWCD’s CWP system, Provo River Aqueduct (analyzed in the ULS EIS), Jordan Aqueduct (analyzed in the ULS EIS), and Alpine Aqueduct. Table 1-1 summarizes the allocations of Block Notice 7A-1 and 7A-2. Through much of north Utah County, the Provo River Aqueduct, the Jordan Aqueduct, and the Alpine Aqueduct share a common right-of-way. There are locations where the Provo River Aqueduct is located outside of the Jordan and Alpine aqueduct rights-of-way. TABLE 1-1: SUMMARY OF BLOCK NOTICE 7A-1 AND 7A-2 ALLOCATIONS
Total AF Delivery AF Deferred AF Comments
Block Notice 7A-1 8,000 N/A N/A Returned to DOI for use as instream flow in the Provo River for the June sucker
JVWCD 16,400 0 16,400 JVWCD deferred use of all or a portion of 16,400 AF for up to 10 years (beginning in October 2020)
MWDSLS 5,600 3,100 2,500 MWDSLS requested delivery of 3,100 AF and deferred up to 10-
years (beginning in October 2020) the use of the remainder or portion thereof
Total 30,000 Analyzed in the ULS EIS for use in Salt Lake County
Temporary Use by CUWCD 18,900 The proposed project would use the deferred volume of Block Notice 7A-2 on a temporary basis for up to 10 years (beginning in October 2020)
During the 10-year deferment period (beginning in October 2020), CUWCD proposes to temporarily3 use up to 18,900 AF for the following purposes:
• to meet the M&I needs of CUWCD customers in north Utah County • as a supply of water for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah
County • potential use as instream flow in the lower Provo River
Varying amounts up to, but not more than 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water could be used for the Proposed Action on a year-to-year basis as described above and contingent upon approved water sales agreements, interlocal agreements for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study, and operations and management agreements for instream flows. All of the 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water may not be used every year. The precise amount of water to be used for any of the three options is not known at this time and the allocations will be allotted based on requests and availability. Each of the elements of the Proposed Action Alternative are described below.
3 It is anticipated that the temporary nature of this arrangement would be for ten years maximum and that JVWCD and MWDSLS would take
their full allotment of Block Notice 7A-2 water by or within ten years. In addition, the deferment of 10 years (beginning in October 2020) can be shortened by JVWCD or MWDSLS if they so desire to use this water.
1.3.1 Municipal and Industrial Temporary Use in North Utah County The Proposed Action involves potentially using up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A-2 water for M&I purposes in northern Utah County. For the Proposed Action, north Utah County encompasses the following cities/areas:
Alpine Fairfield Provo American Fork Lehi Saratoga Springs Cedar Fort Lindon Vineyard Cedar Hills Pleasant Grove Unincorporated Utah County (northern) Eagle Mountain Orem
As mentioned above, the Block Notice 7A-2 water was evaluated in the ULS EIS for use in Salt Lake County and delivered through the SFPRCP. However, the ULS EIS did not evaluate its use in northern Utah County. Temporary use of Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered through the SFPRCP that originates near the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon and terminates at the mouth of Provo Canyon. From there, it could be delivered through existing federal and non-federal pipeline systems (i.e., Provo River Aqueduct, Jordan Aqueduct, Alpine Aqueduct, and the CWP system as shown in Figure 1-2). This water could be provided under short term contracts/agreements between the entity that uses the water and CUWCD. CUWCD would determine the costs of delivery, operation, and maintenance for the temporary use of the Block Notice 7A-2 water. The following pipelines/aqueducts could be used to deliver the Block Notice 7A-2 water:
• Provo River Aqueduct – The Provo River Aqueduct was evaluated in the ULS EIS as a delivery system for the Block Notice 7A-2 water (see Figure 1-2). It was previously known as the Murdock Canal or the Provo Reservoir Canal. The Provo River Aqueduct is 21 miles in length and begins at the Murdock Diversion at the mouth of Provo Canyon and runs to the Point of the Mountain near the Utah County/Salt Lake County border. The Murdock Canal was originally built in the early 1900s and was enclosed in 2013 with a 126-inch diameter welded- steel pipe and renamed Provo River Aqueduct. The Provo River Aqueduct is owned, maintained, and operated by the Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA). It has a connection to the SFPRCP at the Provo River Flow Control Structure. It was evaluated in the ULS EIS as a delivery system for the Block Notice 7A-2 water.
• Jordan Aqueduct – The Jordan Aqueduct begins at the Don A. Christiansen Regional Water Treatment Plant (DACRWTP) located near the mouth of Provo Canyon. It is a buried pipeline that is approximately 38-miles long and terminates at 2100 South in Salt Lake County. The Jordan Aqueduct is owned by the United States and operated and maintained by the JVWCD, for and on behalf of itself, MWDSLS, and CUWCD under separate repayment contracts and joint operations and maintenance agreements. The Jordan Aqueduct was evaluated in the ULS EIS as a delivery system for the Block Notice 7A-2 water and is connected to the SFPRCP through the Alpine Aqueduct. Its alignment is shown in Figure 1-2.
• Alpine Aqueduct – The Alpine Aqueduct is a 14-mile pipeline that originates near the mouth of Provo Canyon and terminates near Timpanogos Highway (SR-92) in Lehi. The Alpine Aqueduct has a diameter ranging from 91-inches to 18-inches and delivers M&I water to various cities in north Utah County. The finished water segment has connections to the DACRWTP and serves Orem City, Provo City, and Vineyard Town and raw water segments bypass the DACRWTP and serve cities in north Utah County. The Alpine Aqueduct is owned by the United States and operated and maintained by CUWCD. The non-federal North Branch Pipeline connects to the Alpine Aqueduct and provides M&I water to Cedar Hills, Highland, and Alpine cities. The Alpine Aqueduct was not evaluated in the ULS EIS as a delivery pipeline for the Block Notice 7A-2 water. Part of the Project is to provide the JLAs the flexibility needed to utilize the Alpine Aqueduct for delivery of Block Notice 7A-2 water. The Alpine Aqueduct is connected to the SFPRCP near the mouth of Provo Canyon. The Alpine Aqueduct alignment is shown in Figure 1- 2 and Figure 1-3 is a map detailing the pipes and other features at the mouth of Provo Canyon.
o North Branch Pipeline – The North Branch Pipeline extends north in Highland City from the Alpine Aqueduct. It delivers water to the cities of Highland, Cedar Hills, and Alpine. The North Branch Pipeline is a non-federal pipe constructed by CUWCD. Recently, CUWCD extended the North Branch Pipeline northward into Alpine City and connected it to the city’s Healy Well site on the south end of the city. The North Branch Pipeline is 36-inches in diameter and approximately 2.7 miles in length with the recent extension to the Alpine City Healy Well.
• CWP –The CWP is shown in Figure 1-2 and its major components consist of: o 800 North Aqueduct. This aqueduct ranges from 42 to 36-inches in diameter and is 6.4
miles in length. The 800 North Aqueduct originates at the DACRWTP. o North Shore Aqueduct. This aqueduct ranges from 48 to 60-inches in diameter and is
16.9 miles in length. It delivers treated water to cities in north Utah County and south Salt Lake County.
o High Head Well Field. The well field is located in Vineyard near Utah Lake. Since 2007, CUWCD has completed the construction and development of eight wells and plans to construct seven more. These wells pump and deliver high quality groundwater to CWP customers in northwestern Utah County and southwestern Salt Lake County. The temporary use of Block Notice 7A-2 water would give CUWCD the option to provide existing contract holders this water and not operate the high head wells. The High head wells draw water from deep aquifer sources and pump it to CWP contract holders.
o Vineyard Wellfield Collector Pipeline. This pipeline ranges from 24 to 48-inches and is 2.8 miles long. It connects the High Head Well Field to the North Shore Aqueduct.
o North Shore Terminal Reservoir. This reservoir has a current capacity of 10 MG with another 30 MG planned in the future. It is located in Saratoga Springs and stores water that is carried in the North Shore and 800 North aqueducts and is produced at the High Head Well Field.
FIGURE 1-2: DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND POTENTIAL MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE BASINS
FIGURE 1-3: MAP SHOWING FEATURES AT THE MOUTH OF PROVO CANYON
1.3.2 Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study Up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A-2 water could be used on a temporary basis for pilot testing of a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah County. Managed aquifer recharge is a component of the larger aquifer storage and recovery process which utilizes surface water to increase groundwater supply reliability. Managed aquifer recharge consists of utilizing surface water to recharge a known aquifer and storing it in the aquifer for later use. The recovery or extraction and use of this stored water is not proposed as part of this project or evaluated in this Final EA. The North Utah County Aquifer Association was organized to coordinate the management of the groundwater aquifer in north Utah County and was comprised of the cities of Alpine, American Fork, Highland, Lehi, Pleasant Grove, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Vineyard, Saratoga Springs, and CUWCD. This association has discontinued its formal organization. However, the cities of Alpine, Highland, American Fork, Lehi, Pleasant Grove, along with CUWCD have formed the North Utah County Aquifer Council (NUCAC) through an interlocal agreement and cooperate on an annual workplan to continue investigations to optimize the management of the groundwater sources in conjunction with each party’s individual water rights. All NUCAC city agencies depend on groundwater as a drinking water source and is an area of Utah experiencing high growth rates that have resulted in declining groundwater levels.
Aquifer Storage & Recovery Feasibility Study The North Utah County Aquifer Association acquired a grant from the CUPCA Office to study the feasibility of aquifer recharge in north Utah County. The feasibility study was completed in 2012 and identified 19 potential recharge sites along the east foothills of northern Utah County and areas near Saratoga Springs northwest of Utah Lake. The study utilized a GIS database to evaluate soil types, aquifer conductivity, and the boundaries of potential primary recharge areas to identify locations where managed artificial recharge is most likely to be successful. A site was considered suitable for artificial recharge by surface spreading if it met all three of the following criteria: presence of surface soils in certain hydrologic groups, the receiving aquifer had a hydraulic conductivity greater than or equal to 10 feet per day, and the potential primary recharge area was within the area of the principal aquifer. Member agencies each identified specific recharge sites based on their knowledge of land use and ownership, soil properties, and proximity of other infrastructure that could be used to deliver surface water to each site.
Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Areas The Proposed Action Alternative could provide Block Notice 7A-2 water, on a temporary basis, for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah County. The aquifer storage & recharge feasibility study identified multiple sites for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study. Five locations are being evaluated for use of the Block Notice 7A-2 water as part of a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study. The Proposed Action could utilize up to 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water for surface spreading at the five recharge locations within the next ten years. The five recharge locations are existing facilities and would require no new infrastructure to surface spread water. As part of the pilot testing, existing wells in the vicinity of the recharge locations would be monitored to determine the effectiveness of the managed aquifer recharge. The five areas in north Utah County are shown in Figure 1-2 in green and are
described in the following paragraphs. Multiple recharge areas are being considered in part to evaluate which recharge area(s) are most productive.
CUWCD Overflow Basin – This site lies on a 3.5-acre parcel owned by the CUWCD with approximately 2.1 acres of the site that could potentially serve as a recharge basin. The remainder of the site is occupied by sludge-drying beds for DACRWTP. According to the 2012 aquifer recharge study, the CUWCD Overflow Basin has the potential to recharge the aquifer by 605 AF annually. Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered to the overflow basin through the SFPRCP, to the Alpine Aqueduct, and to the DACRWTP. The DACRWTP has two pipelines, a 30-inch and a 3-inch drain lines, that connect to the CUWCD Overflow Basin. The CUWCD Overflow Basin is shown in Figure 1-4.
FIGURE 1-4: CUWCD OVERFLOW BASIN
Battle Creek Debris Basin – This site is located on the foothills of Mount Timpanogos within Pleasant Grove City. The site is owned by the North Utah County Water Conservancy District (NUCWCD) and is 4.3 acres in size. The basin has a 44 AF capacity, and the dam structure is 47-feet high. The 2012 aquifer recharge feasibility study indicated that surface spreading in the Battle Creek Debris Basin could recharge the aquifer by 662 AF annually. The Battle Creek Debris Basin is shown in Figure 1-5.
Water flowing down Battle Creek that would normally be diverted into Pleasant Grove City’s secondary irrigation system could instead continue to flow down the channel to the debris basin and not be diverted and used for the potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study. To replace Pleasant Grove City’s secondary irrigation water, Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered through the Alpine Aqueduct and used by Pleasant Grove City. This water trade would be contingent upon agreements and/or contracts between Pleasant Grove City and CUWCD.
FIGURE 1-5: BATTLE CREEK DEBRIS BASIN
American Fork River Debris Basin and River Channel – This site is located at the mouth of American Fork Canyon and consists of a debris basin and reach of the American Fork River that is 3,700 feet in length4. The debris basin is approximately 13 acres in size, but a 3.5-acre concrete-lined pond occupies the basin’s northern boundary and would not be used for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study. Therefore, the American Fork River Debris Basin for potential use is 9.5 acres in size. The property is owned by Highland and Cedar Hills cities and has a 90 AF capacity and a dam height of 22-feet. According to the 2012 aquifer recharge study, this site could recharge up to 5,472 AF to the aquifer annually. The American Fork River channel portion for this site extends from the outlet works of the debris basin, 3,700-feet southwest to North Utah County Boulevard (SR-129 and 4800 West in Highland City). The river channel property is owned by Highland City, Cedar Hills City, and the United States (Forest Service). The recharge area along the American Fork River is approximately 2.5 acres in size. It is unknown at this time the volume of water that could be used for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study. Block Notice 7A-2 water could be supplied to the American Fork River Debris Basin and the river channel through the North Branch Pipeline. CUWCD owns a turnout to Cedar Hills from the Alpine
4 The 2012 Aquifer Storage & Recovery Feasibility Study did not evaluate the American Fork River channel as a recharge area. However, the JLAs have determined that the section of the American Fork River channel between the debris basin and the North Utah County Boulevard would be a highly effective managed aquifer recharge site.
FIGURE 1-6: AMERICAN FORK RIVER DEBRIS BASIN AND RIVER CHANNEL
Aqueduct nearby the American Fork Debris Basin and the American Fork River Channel. The American Fork Debris Basin and the river channel is shown in Figure 1-6.
Highland Gravel Pit (only property owned by Highland City) – This site is located within the boundaries of Highland City just north of Timpanogos Highway (SR-92) and the American Fork River Debris Basin at the mouth of American Fork Canyon. The area proposed for a potential managed aquifer recharge project is within an active materials pit. Property ownership in the gravel pit is owned by Highland City and a private individual. It is currently being leased to a rock products company as part of their gravel mining and processing operations. The site for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study is owned by Highland City and is approximately 10.6 acres (see Figure 1-7). The gravel pit currently receives American Fork River water from existing irrigation ditches and pipelines. This site could recharge up to 2,200 AF to the aquifer annually (note that the 2012 aquifer recharge study evaluated 5.6 acres of property owned by Highland City). The potential for additional areas may be considered in the future relating to the private property. Water could be supplied from the American Fork River or 7A-2 water could be delivered to the Highland Gravel Pit through the North Branch Pipeline, which is connected to the Alpine Aqueduct. CUWCD owns a turnout on the North Branch Pipeline to Highland City directly south of the potential recharge site, and its pressurized irrigation system pond which diverts into existing ditches and pipes that extend into the Highland Gravel Pit area. Water could also be delivered via the American Fork River Debris Basin and exchanged for American Fork River flows diverted to the ditches and pipelines to the potential aquifer
FIGURE 1-7: HIGHLAND GRAVEL PIT
recharge sites. This water trade would be contingent upon agreements and/or contracts between Highland City and CUWCD.
Dry Creek Channel – This site is located in Alpine City. The portion of the Dry Creek Channel used for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study would begin directly below the Dry Creek Diversion in Alpine and continue to Timpanogos Highway (SR-92), a distance of approximately five miles. The Dry Creek Channel carries springtime runoff and high flow water from the mountains to the north east to Utah Lake and/or the Jordan River. The Dry Creek Channel is shown in Figure 1-8. The potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study water to be used in the Dry Creek Channel would require an agreement between the JLAs and Alpine City and Dry Creek Irrigation Company for use of their water. Water flowing down Dry Creek that would normally be diverted into Alpine City’s secondary irrigation system could instead continue to flow down the channel and be used for the potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study. To replace Alpine City’s secondary irrigation water, Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered through the North Branch Pipeline which is connected to the Alpine Aqueduct and used by Alpine City. This water trade would be contingent upon the above-mentioned agreements and/or contracts. Table 1-2 on the following page summarizes the potential managed aquifer recharge areas.
FIGURE 1-8: DRY CREEK CHANNEL
TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Potential Annual
Recharge Volume (AF) Size or length
Property Ownership
CUWCD Overflow Basin 605 2.1 acres Property owned by CUWCD.
Battle Creek Debris Basin 662 4.3 acres Property owned by NUCWCD.
American Fork River Debris Basin and River Channel
5,472+ 12 acres
3,700 feet for river channel
Property owned by Highland City, Cedar Hills City, and the United States (river channel).
Highland Gravel Pit 2,200+ 10.6 acres Highland City
Dry Creek Channel 778 5 miles Property ownership through this reach of Dry Creek is largely private. Alpine City owns several parcels adjacent to Dry Creek through this reach
Total 9,717+
1.3.3 Instream Flows for Temporary Use in the Lower Provo River The Proposed Action Alternative could potentially use temporarily up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A-2 water for instream flow in the lower Provo River in support of the recovery of the threatened June sucker (Chasmistes liorus). The June sucker is a lake sucker fish endemic to Utah Lake. It was federally listed as an endangered species with critical habitat on the lower 4.9 miles of the Provo River under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on April 30, 1986 (51 FR 10857). On February 3, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reclassified the June sucker as threatened. CUPCA legislation authorized funding for mitigating impacts to fish, wildlife, and recreation resources including provisions for supplementing flows within the lower Provo River. On a temporary basis as described above, the Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered to the lower Provo River from the SFPRCP at the Olmsted Power Plant tail race located at the mouth of Provo Canyon. The flow could help support the June sucker flow hydrograph for the Provo River as identified in the Lower Provo River Ecosystem Flow Recommendation Report (2008) and adopted by the Provo River Delta Restoration Project EIS and RODs (2015). Using water for this purpose would require an entity, presumably the June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (JSRIP), to pay for the water used, to include the apportioned share of operation, maintenance, repair, and reserves associated with facilities used to deliver the water. The Provo River Delta Restoration Project (Delta Project) is currently being constructed under the direction of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. The Delta Project is a major undertaking to improve the rearing habitat for the young June sucker by recreating a delta in the lower Provo River. The Delta Project will further the recovery efforts of the June sucker and construction is scheduled to be completed in 2025. The temporary use of the Block Notice 7A-2 water could assist with the establishment of the vegetation and habitat in the Provo River Delta once construction is completed.
1.4 Purpose and Need This section lists the purposes and needs for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County project.
1.4.1 Purposes of the Proposed Project
• Provide water for temporary municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County • Provide water for a potential temporary managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north
Utah County • Provide water for temporary instream flows in the lower Provo River in support of the
recovery of the threatened June sucker
1.4.2 Needs of the Proposed Project The need for Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County is to allow up to 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water allocated for the JVWCD and MWDSLS service areas to be used temporarily in north Utah County. Another Project need is to provide the JLAs the flexibility to utilize existing water systems that extend into north Utah County for the delivery of the temporary Block Notice 7A-2 water. These systems are the Provo River Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS), Jordan Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS), Alpine Aqueduct and North Branch Pipeline, and the CWP system. In addition, by providing the temporary Block Notice 7A-2 water for the uses described and as determined by CUWCD, the water may provide interim revenue during the deferral period to offset CUWCD costs associated with the water.
1.5 Permits, Contracts, and Authorizations The Proposed Action for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations. The Proposed Action Alternative is dependent upon approval of contracts and compliance with Utah State water right laws. In January 2005, CUWCD finalized, with the assistance of the CUPCA Office and the Mitigation Commission, the 2004 Definite Plan Report (2004 DPR) for the Bonneville Unit, CUP. The 2004 DPR was prepared as required in Section 205 of the CUPCA legislation. The 2004 DPR is a guiding document for completion of the Bonneville Unit of the CUP. A Plan Report will be prepared which will amend the 2004 DPR for the temporary use of the Block Notice 7A-2 water in North Utah County. The issuance of a block notice initiates repayment for the reimbursable water development costs to the United States. CUWCD accepted the block notice, has not sought a deferment under the Water Supply Act of 1958, and has fully prepaid the costs associated with Block Notice 7A-2. The Proposed Action consists of three temporary potential uses of the Block Notice 7A-2 water: municipal and industrial uses in north Utah County, as a water source for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study, and for instream flows in the lower Provo River. Payment for the temporary use of Block Notice 7A-2 water would be determined by CUWCD based on the volume of water and type of use. In addition, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs associated with that use would be assessed as part of the contract(s) and agreement(s).
1.6 Related Projects and Documents The Proposed Action has been developed with consideration given to the related planning and environmental documents listed below:
• Final Environmental Statement, Bonneville Unit of the CUP (1972) • Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Diamond Fork System
(1999) • Supplement to the Bonneville Unit Definite Plan Report (2004) • Final Environmental Impact Statement and Records of Decisions, Utah Lake Drainage Basin
Water Delivery System (2004 and 2005) • Lower Provo River Ecosystem Flow Recommendation Report (2008) • Final Environmental Assessment, Realignment of a Portion of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin
Water Delivery System, (2010) • Aquifer Storage & Feasibility Study (2012) • Final Environmental Impact Statement, Provo River Delta Restoration Project (2015) • Final Environmental Assessment, ULS Orem Reach 2 Realignment (2015)
Page 21 Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 2: Alternatives August 2021
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the alternatives considered for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County project: No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5.
2.2 No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, the 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 would remain in Strawberry Reservoir and not be used for municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County, for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study, or for the temporary use for instream flows in the lower Provo River to support the June sucker. The 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water would not be used until JVWCD and MWDSLS requested its use or until the end of the 10-year deferral period. The deferral period began in October 2020.
2.3 Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would allow the JLAs to use, on a temporary basis as described in Chapter 1, up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A-2 water for:
• Municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County and to allow that water to be delivered through CUWCD’s CWP system and or the Alpine Aqueduct/North Branch Pipeline. The Provo River Aqueduct and the Jordan Aqueduct were evaluated as delivery systems in the ULS EIS.
• Potential managed aquifer rechange pilot study at five locations within north Utah County. • Instream flows in the lower Provo River to support the June sucker.
Varying amounts up to, but not more than 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water could be used for the Proposed Action on a year-to-year basis as described above and contingent upon approved water sales agreements, interlocal agreements for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study, and operations and management agreements for instream flows. All of the 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water may not be used every year. The precise amount of water to be used for any of the three options is not known at this time and the allocations will be allotted based on requests and availability.
2.3.1 Municipal and Industrial Temporary Use in North Utah County The Proposed Action Alternative could potentially use up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A-2 water for M&I purposes in northern Utah County in the following cities/areas:
Alpine Fairfield Provo American Fork Lehi Saratoga Springs Cedar Fort Lindon Vineyard Cedar Hills Pleasant Grove Unincorporated Utah County (northern) Eagle Mountain Orem
The Block Notice 7A-2 water was evaluated in the ULS EIS for use in Salt Lake County but did not evaluate its use in northern Utah County. The Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered through existing federal and non-federal delivery systems and could be provided under short term contracts/agreements. The following pipelines/aqueducts could be used to deliver the Block Notice 7A-2 water:
• Provo River Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS) • Jordan Aqueduct (evaluated in the ULS EIS) • Alpine Aqueduct
o North Branch Pipeline • CWP pipelines and aqueducts
Part of the Project is to provide the JLAs the flexibility needed to utilize both federal (i.e., Jordan Aqueduct, Alpine Aqueduct) and non-federal (i.e., CWP, North Branch Pipeline, Provo River Aqueduct) delivery systems for conveying Block Notice 7A-2 water.
2.3.2 Potential Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study The Block Notice 7A-2 water could be used on a temporary basis as described for a potential managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah County. A specific managed aquifer recharge pilot study project has not been identified at this time. Managed aquifer recharge is a component of the larger aquifer storage and recovery process which utilizes surface water to increase groundwater supply reliability. Managed aquifer recharge consists of spreading surface water to recharge a known aquifer and storing it in the aquifer for later use. The recovery or extraction and use of this stored water is not proposed as part of this project or evaluated in this Final EA. The Proposed Action Alternative consists of the potential use of five managed aquifer recharge locations to utilize up to 18,900 AF of Block Notice 7A-2 water for a pilot test which consists of surface spreading. The five recharge locations are existing facilities and would require no new infrastructure for a managed aquifer recharge project. The five potential recharge locations are shown in Figure 1-2 and are:
• CUWCD Overflow Basin • Battle Creek Debris Basin • American Fork River Debris Basin and River Channel • Highland Gravel Pit • Dry Creek Channel
As part of the pilot testing, existing wells in the vicinity of the recharge locations could be monitored to determine the effectiveness of the managed aquifer recharge.
2.3.3 Instream Flows for Temporary Use in the Lower Provo River The Proposed Action Alternative could potentially use up to 18,900 AF of the Block Notice 7A-2 water for instream flow in the Provo River in support of recovery of the threatened June sucker on a
temporary basis as described. The June sucker is a lake sucker fish endemic to Utah Lake. It was federally listed as an endangered species with critical habitat on the lower 4.9 miles of the Provo River under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on April 30, 1986 (51 FR 10857). However, on February 3, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moved the June sucker to threatened status. On a temporary basis as described above, the Block Notice 7A-2 water could be delivered to the lower Provo River from the SFPRCP at the Olmsted Power Plant tail race located at the mouth of Provo Canyon. The water could help support Provo River flows in the manner identified in the Lower Provo River Ecosystem Flow Recommendation Report (2008) which was adopted and evaluated in the Provo River Delta Restoration Project EIS and RODs (2015). The Provo River Delta Restoration Project (Delta Project) is currently being constructed under the direction of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. The Delta Project is a major undertaking to improve the rearing habitat for the young June sucker by recreating a delta in the lower Provo River. The Delta Project will further the recovery efforts of the June sucker and construction is scheduled to be completed in 2025. The temporary use of the Block Notice 7A-2 water could assist with the establishment of the vegetation and habitat in the Provo River Delta once construction is completed.
This page intentionally left blank
Page 25 Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County Final Environmental Assessment Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences August 2021
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1 Introduction This Final EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1500-1508 that went into effect September 14, 2020, to examine the potential environmental impacts of the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County project. In accordance with the NEPA regulations codified in 40 CFR §1501.5, this chapter discusses the existing environmental conditions that may be impacted by the alternatives as described in chapters 1 and 2 and the environmental consequences of these alternatives. As discussed throughout this Final EA, due to the temporary nature of the available water supply all affected environment and environmental consequences would be temporary.
3.1.1 Affected Environment The affected environment or the existing conditions were identified based on prior experience and knowledge of the surrounding area along with coordination with federal, state, and local agencies. In addition, information was used from studies and previously completed NEPA documents to help define and outline the affected environment.
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences section describes the potential effects, both negative and beneficial, that the project may have on the environment.
3.1.3 Resources Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis The alternatives do not involve construction or any ground disturbing activities. The debris basins have been constructed as well as the pipelines and aqueducts proposed for delivery of the Block Notice 7A-2 water. The Proposed Action Alternative is mainly an administrative consideration requiring this Final EA. The JLAs considered all phases of the Proposed Action Alternative and the impact-causing elements associated with the action alternative to identify resources potentially affected by the project. The JLAs first considered whether a resource was present in the project area, and if it was not, no further analysis was warranted. For resources present, the JLAs identified preliminary substantive issues based on internal agency and public scoping. Issues were then evaluated to see if they could be addressed through measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. The issues that required detailed analysis to make a determination on significance were moved forward

FONSI and Final EA for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use ...

Documents

Transcript of FONSI and Final EA for the Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use ...